marvelfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Loki Laufeyson (Ikol) (Earth-616)
Should we have 3 pages for Original, Kid and Ikol Loki? Is New Loki a new character? So, I've asked Al Ewing... I was curious about the three different pages for the Original Loki, Kid Loki and Ikol/Agent of Asgard. So I wrote a question to Al Ewing on tumblr. I asked if we should create a different page for Original Loki, Kid Loki and Ikol/AoA Loki in his opinion. I also asked him if the New Loki is a new character. Here's what he answered: "You’ll probably be in a better position to make the call about New Loki after next issue, but we’re definitely intending him as a “Fourth Loki” - a new status quo moving forward, for as long as he lasts. (I’m amazed nobody’s tried numbering the Lokis yet.) As for the rest - I have no idea! The various iterations of Loki are different enough for their own pages, certainly, but they’re all iterations of Loki, so I could see a case for having them all on the same page too if that was easier for people using the wiki. I’d go with whatever’s practical. Sorry if that’s not much help!" The answer was private, so I can't send a link. All I can do it sent a print screen of my ask box as prove if you guys need it. --Kai Maciel (talk) 21:26, April 18, 2015 (UTC) :Al could be taking about him being the "fourth Loki" in a spiritual sense, that after L:AoA #13 he became the "God of Stories" when he embraced his other nature. Because physically (or mentally) there are only three Lokis. :I think having all of the Lokis in the same page would be a little complicated, considering two of them interacted with each other and co-existed (Nerd Loki when he was Ikol and Kid Loki). Additionally, considering they're established to be copies and not the original, it's in our policies to have them in separate pages as they're separate characters. I'm glad to see an author kind of like being so open to questions to help the interpretation of events in this wiki and other fan sites. Other people like Tom Brevoort kind of treat the Marvel Wiki as something bad. ::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 21:37, April 18, 2015 (UTC) :: - I would argue with the fact that he said "but they’re all iterations of Loki" indicating that the notion of just being a copy is pretty much the character's own interpretation. I'm fairly certain that scene where he talks to the ethereal Kid Loki and Siege Loki was set in his own subconscious as his body was still strapped in that chair. He does still have the memories of each previous life after all. And if we keep separating them where does it end? In 2009 Loki was Lady Loki, before then was Classic Loki. Do we number them like the Doctor Who Wiki? This would fast become the Loki Wikia instead of the Marvel Wikia. Having a separate page for each and every Loki is a lot more confusing than consolidating. Also seriously "Dead forever" when he has already had two conversations since his "death"!? Loki lies even to himself. He's more than just a copy. "All iterations of Loki" to quote the author of the comic. Also notice the use of the word reincarnation in Loki Agent of Asgard issue 13. It's apparent to me that both Siege Loki and Kid Loki exist inside of him. Siege Loki is only "Dead forever" in the sense that he'll never be that particular version of himself again. But Siege and Kid Loki both exist inside him, notice how Siege Loki quotes his own last words in Loki Agent of Asgard 13, something a mere Copy would never know. "I'm sorry brother." just as the ghostly Kid Loki also quotes his own last words. if Agent of Asgard Loki was just a copy planted before Siege Loki's death, and if Siege was truly gone forever he would never be able to know that quote. Also just before Agent of Asgard Loki decides to reinvent himself he addresses the two previous Loki's as a "We" and "us" instead of just "me." "These things are right. These things WE'LL keep. Let's (Let us) become something new." - quote from Loki Agent of Asgard 13. I think it's time to admit these separations here on this wikia is wrong. [User:Nightling - April 18, 2015 (EST) :You are misunderstanding this situation. We're separating the pages because they have been stated to be different characters mentally. :Classic Loki is the same as Lady Loki and Siege Loki because it still was his own mind in those bodies. In the same way Betsy Braddock in Japanese body is the same as original Betsy Braddock in British body. Or in the same Jim Rhodes and Charles Xavier are the same as always, as they both have had their minds placed in a cloned body. As long as a character's mind (or soul or whatever interpretation) is the same, the character is the same. :On the other hand, characters that are copies deserve their own separate pages, according to our site's policies. We don't have all of Ben Reilly's information in Peter Parker's, after all. :Now to Kid Loki and AoA Loki. It has been stated numerous times that they're not the same Loki as Classic/Buscema/Lady/Siege Loki. They are copies. When Kid Loki first appeared, he had no memory of his previous incarnation's past life. And AoA Loki describes himself as "a copy the old Loki made to lie in wait for his innocent self," after being adressed as an echo of the original Loki, not the same as the original Loki. :What do you mean by "seriously "Dead forever" when he has already had two conversations since his "death"!?" If you're talking about his appearance in Journey into Myster #622, that was the echo, Ikol. And if the other of the two conversations was the one from Loki: Agent of Asgard #13, it was his ghost, not the original Loki himself. :Kid Loki doesn't exist inside him, he was completely annihilated when Ikol took over his body. His mind was obliterated totally. If Kid Loki was somehow alive, the Marvel Universe would've probably been destroyed because the Fear Crown would still exist, and in the hands of Mephisto. However, the crown was gone, like Kid Loki. :And your argument on the quotes is just ridiculous. The Kid Loki and Classic Loki before AoA Loki were merely ghosts, not the real deals. Actually, your entire argument is just ridiculous. You're just claiming that we can't state certain facts based on the possiblity they aren't. We are working with the facts that have been presented in different comic books, and those facts are the ones that speak. After all, you say "I'm fairly certain" and "It's apparent to me," while I use as evidence the actual information presented in the books and not biased interpretations like you do. :Now, please shut the hell up before coming the next time with BS like "I think it's time to admit these separations here on this wikia are wrong." Know the place where you're editing before claiming their practices and methods are wrong, if you don't even know them. :Thank you. ::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 02:16, April 19, 2015 (UTC) Last Days Isn't the Loki currently appearing in Last Days a new incarnation? I am a Warrior. 23:34, May 21, 2015 (UTC) :I've been wondering that as well. Maybe Last Days Loki is a new person, or just a new persona. ::The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 04:06, May 22, 2015 (UTC) :::He does say "that (Loki/Ikol) is gone" and this is his turn. He might be a continuation of the "Loki" character, but he doesn't remember his past, he behaves differently, looks different. He's less Ikol than Ikol was the original Loki, who at least had his memories. Really, this all feels like a Doctor Who regeneration (which Al Ewing also writes) rather than Loki finally growing up and achieving his redemption. He basically destroyed himself and his problems and left what he felt was more important for this next Loki in the final days of Earth-616. That's my opinion. --Kai Maciel (talk) 16:41, May 22, 2015 (UTC) ::::That's one of the reasons I hope Last Days Loki is the same as AoA Loki. There's still a chance they're the same, considering the New Loki's statment that AoA Loki is gone might not be truth. After all, he's either half an eon old or half an hour old. Or both. Or neither. He's not a very reliable narrator. :::::--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 18:53, May 22, 2015 (UTC) Adoption vs Foster Care This may sound stupid, but why is Loki listed as Odin's Foster Son and not Adopted Son? From what I found on on Adoption vs. Long Term Fostering: "Adoption is a process which legally removes the rights and responsibilities of the child's birth parent(s), and transfers them to adoptive parent(s). The child will lose all rights of inheritance from their birth family, and will take the surname of their adoptive family. Fostering does not provide the same legal security for either the foster carers or the child, and would usually only continue until the children and young people are 18. However it means the child can keep their ties with their birth family, who may remain involved in any important decisions being made about their child, and would usually be encouraged to have regular contact with their child." As far as I know, Loki only kept the Laufeyson surname, but he wasn't in contact with his birth parents nor will he inherit the throne of Jotunheim. Shouldn't it be considered adoption rather than foster care? (Kai Maciel (talk) 14:50, January 9, 2017 (UTC))